Court Cancels Licenses, Orders Transparent Policy for Development Licenses

The court allowed the writ petition, canceling the licenses granted to the private respondents. It directed the State Government to consider granting licenses after framing a transparent and fair policy. The judgment highlighted the need for adherence to statutory provisions and the adoption of fair and reasonable methods for granting development licenses, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice and transparency.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Inquiry into the functioning of the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana.
2. Setting aside the order rejecting the petitioners' claim for a grant of license.
3. Legality of granting licenses based on the Draft Development Plan.
4. Fairness and reasonableness of the "first come first served" policy for granting licenses.
5. Compliance with statutory provisions and policies regarding land use and development plans.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Inquiry into the Functioning of the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus for an inquiry into the arbitrary and illegal granting of licenses and change of land use by the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana. They alleged that the department favored private respondents by removing deficiencies in their applications while not extending the same treatment to the petitioners.

2. Setting Aside the Order Rejecting the Petitioners' Claim for a Grant of License:
The petitioners' application for a Group Housing Colony license was rejected on 9.11.2010, and their subsequent appeal was dismissed on 20.9.2013. The court found that the petitioners' land was not part of the Final Development Plan as of the application date and that the petitioners did not have a clear title to the land at the time of application. The court upheld the rejection of the petitioners' application, stating that the decision was just and legal.

3. Legality of Granting Licenses Based on the Draft Development Plan:
The court examined whether licenses could be granted based on the Draft Development Plan. It found that the 1975 Act contemplates only the Final Development Plan for considering license applications. Accepting applications based on the Draft Development Plan was deemed "wholly unwarranted, unjustified, illegal, irrational, arbitrary, and against the express provisions of the 1975 Act."

4. Fairness and Reasonableness of the "First Come First Served" Policy:
The court scrutinized the "first come first served" policy for granting licenses and found it to be inherently flawed and unfair. The policy was criticized for involving an element of pure chance or accident, leading to an unholy race among applicants. The court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v. Union of India and others, which held that public authorities must adopt a transparent and fair method for awarding contracts or licenses to ensure all eligible persons get a fair opportunity.

5. Compliance with Statutory Provisions and Policies:
The court noted that the 1963 Act and the 1975 Act, along with their respective rules, provide a framework for controlled area development and licensing. However, the practice of accepting applications based on the Draft Development Plan was found to be inconsistent with the statutory provisions. The court emphasized that the principle of first come first served was not a fair or reasonable method for granting licenses and called for a more transparent and equitable policy.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, canceling the licenses granted to the private respondents. It directed the State Government to consider granting licenses after framing a transparent and fair policy. The judgment highlighted the need for adherence to statutory provisions and the adoption of fair and reasonable methods for granting development licenses, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice and transparency.

---